[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[dixon01767]

Are you talking about US society?

I wasn't aware of a global "society"
.

All societies. Ancient Mesopotamia through 20th century US.

 

[Quag]

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

Yeah it has and you insist on only talking about Rome when there were many cultures who also accepted SSM
Sorry you have been busted on this nonsense
Still waiting for you to explain why you keep mentioning procreation when you admit it isn't relevant to marriage

 

[Quag]

All societies. Ancient Mesopotamia through 20th century US.

False already proven stop lying

 

[Rich2018]

All societies. Ancient Mesopotamia through 20th century US.

So all societies since the dawn of human evolution have adopted a different god and banned same sex marriage - you know this for a fact?
Was the reasoning religious in nature?

As I keep saying, just because an idea gained popularity doesn't make it right.

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


There are NO good, non religious, arguments against same sex marriage.


Just because our ancestors forbade it is not a good reason. We've progressed as a society since then.

The popular argument is hardly a good one.

 

[CLAX1911]

All societies. Ancient Mesopotamia through 20th century US.

So what?

 

[Rich2018]

So what?

100 billion flies eat pooh.

 

[dixon01767]

Yeah it has and you insist on only talking about Rome when there were many cultures who also accepted SSM

No they had same sex arrangements, contracts, unions etc. Similiar to marriage but not marriage.

 

[dixon01767]

So what?

Your the one who thinks what society says has the authority to limit marriage to unrelated couples. It also had the exact same athority to limit it to opposite sex couples.

Because the society said no.

 

[Rich2018]

No they had same sex arrangements, contracts, unions etc. Similiar to marriage but not marriage.

What is marriage except a legal union.

Theists don't own the word - the law does. Many marriages have no religious element - the proportion rises outside the USA.

If Theists want to create a term for a religious ceremony with no legal weight, they can go right ahead.

 

[CLAX1911]

Your the one who thinks what society says has the authority to limit marriage to unrelated couples.

It does.

It also had the exact same athority to limit it to opposite sex couples.

It does sure, but it decided not to here in the states any more.

 

[Lisa]

What is marriage except a legal union.

Theists don't own the word - the law does. Many marriages have no religious element - the proportion rises outside the USA.

If Theists want to create a term for a religious ceremony with no legal weight, they can go right ahead.

Theists have a term for the religious part of marriage. Christian term it holy matrimony. It is usually mentioned in the ceremony after the vows are taken.

Marriage is a secular civil contract between 2 adults and the state. It is nothing more than that. The idea of marriage predates the Abrahamic religions because it is mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi, so Christians cannot claim it as their own.

 

[dixon01767]

What is marriage except a legal union..

Well, first they call them a marriage, as opposed to calling it something other than a marriage, and in BC Roman law.

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
and
Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")....

in Ancient Mesopotamia a marriage wasnt much different than purchasing a slave, except when buying a wife, if she didnt produce any children you were due a refund of your purchase price. But I agree, now its just legal union. Making the exclusion of closely related couples unjustified and therefore unconstituional discrimination.

 

[Rich2018]

Theists have a term for the religious part of marriage. Christian term it holy matrimony. It is usually mentioned in the ceremony after the vows are taken.

Marriage is a secular civil contract between 2 adults and the state. It is nothing more than that. The idea of marriage predates the Abrahamic religions because it is mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi, so Christians cannot claim it as their own.

Totally agree with you.

Marriage is a legal contract between two adults. The state must ensure it is consensual and come to a restriction on marrying a close relative.

 

[Lisa]

Totally agree with you.

Marriage is a legal contract between two adults. The state must ensure it is consensual and come to a restriction on marrying a close relative.

Agreed.

 

[Rich2018]

Well, first they call them a marriage, as opposed to calling it something other than a marriage, and in BC Roman law.

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
and
Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")....

in Ancient Mesopotamia a marriage wasnt much different than purchasing a slave, except when buying a wife, if she didnt produce any children you were due a refund of your purchase price. But I agree, now its just legal union. Making the exclusion of closely related couples unjustified and therefore unconstituional discrimination.

Then what are you arguing against?


Marriage is a legal contract as defined by the law of the land.


A purely religious "Holy Matrimony" union already exists...the couple can agree to a legal union at a different time.

 

[dixon01767]

Theists have a term for the religious part of marriage. Christian term it holy matrimony. It is usually mentioned in the ceremony after the vows are taken.

Marriage is a secular civil contract between 2 adults and the state. It is nothing more than that. The idea of marriage predates the Abrahamic religions because it is mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi, so Christians cannot claim it as their own.

The Code of Hammurabi limited marriage to men and women. Its biology, not religion that limited marriage to men and women. And Matrimony is from Latin Matrimonium that predated christianity. Root of the word Mater, MOTHER. Only a man can make a woman a mother.
This enduring, elaborate institution of marriage didnt come into existence and evolve because people were engaging in sex. It did so because when men and women engage in sex, a child is frequently the result.

 

[Quag]

No they had same sex arrangements, contracts, unions etc. Similiar to marriage but not marriage.

Repeating failed claims will not make them true

 

[dixon01767]

Totally agree with you.

Marriage is a legal contract between two adults. The state must ensure it is consensual and come to a restriction on marrying a close relative.

And why is it that the two elderly sisters living together for decades must be excluded from marriage? You know, other than the Old Testament prohibitions.

 

[Quag]

And why is it that the two elderly sisters living together for decades must be excluded from marriage? You know, other than the Old Testament prohibitions.

Take it to the supreme court. I think you may have trouble finding these 2 elderly sisters though to use as a test case
What does that have to do with any mythical argument against SSM?

 

[Rich2018]

And why is it that the two elderly sisters living together for decades must be excluded from marriage? You know, other than the Old Testament prohibitions.

How many times do I have to tell you?

Are you blind or can't read?

LEGAL PRECEDENT

 

[dixon01767]

Then what are you arguing against?

The exclusion of closely related couples with no rational justification required by the US Constitution

Marriage is a legal contract as defined by the law of the land.

A purely religious "Holy Matrimony" union already exists...the couple can agree to a legal union at a different time.

Im an atheist and Matrimony is from Latin Matrimonium which predates Christianity. Latin root of the word Mater, MOTHER. Its biology not religion that dictates only women give birth and only a man is responsible for her doing so.

 

[dixon01767]

How many times do I have to tell you?

Are you blind or can't read?

LEGAL PRECEDENT

I'll need a link to the legal precedent as I suspect it is a product of your imagination.

 

[dixon01767]

Take it to the supreme court. I think you may have trouble finding these 2 elderly sisters though to use as a test case
What does that have to do with any mythical argument against SSM?

This is a debate forum. I was looking for an answer from all of you here who so vehemently oppose two elderly sisters marrying, not the supreme court.

 

[Quag]

This is a debate forum. I was looking for an answer from all of you here who so vehemently oppose two elderly sisters marrying, not the supreme court.

So absolutely nothing?
Ok when are you going to present an argument against SSM?

 

[Rich2018]

I'll need a link to the legal precedent as I suspect it is a product of your imagination.

You need a link to being told of this earlier in the thread?