[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[dixon01767]

If the projections of the 1st Amendment, among others, only applied to the federal government then states and cities could also infringe on our rights and we would still not have secular and legal protections. As we all live in a state that oversight was corrected in the Incorpoation Doctrine of the 14th Amendment that applied all of those protections o to states, counties and local government, including public school boards.

Incorporation Doctrine | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

I know you wont understand but you havent contradicted a thing Ive said.

 

[dixon01767]

What argument?
Elderly sisters cant marry thus SSM shouldn't be allowed?
If its not that then try explaining what it is
If it is then why?

????? No same sex marriage should INCLUDE closely related couples because its exclusion has no rational justification. Just as the argument against traditional marriage was that it excluded couples of the same sex. Silly fool logic bouncing around in some of your heads.

 

[Quag]

????? No same sex marriage should INCLUDE closely related couples because its exclusion has no rational justification. Just as the argument against traditional marriage was that it excluded couples of the same sex. Silly fool logic bouncing around in some of your heads.

That is not an argument it is just some assertions.
You failed to answer my questions.
Is your argument that because two elderly sisters cant marry, SSM shouldn't be allowed?
If its not that then try explaining what it is
If it is then why?

 

[dixon01767]

Marriage is a human construct which has absolutely zero to do with biology. Marriage isn't natural at all, so nothing about biology applies to marriage, particularly not legal marriage.

"LIMITED" past tense. And the courts, the ultimate authority on that human construct we call the law, disagree with you who knows nothing about the law.


"Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple."
Washington State Courts - Error

"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....
Washington State Courts - Error

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 is not an argument it is just some assertions.
You failed to answer my questions.

Of course I did. Just as the arguement against traditional marriage was that it excluded same sex couples and that they should be included, the argument against same sex marriage is that it excludes closely related couples and that they should be included. AND you could easlily refute my assertion by providing the justification for the exclusion. You havent even tried to do so.

 

[Quag]

Of course I did. Just as the arguement against traditional marriage was that it excluded same sex couples and that they should be included, the argument against same sex marriage is that it excludes closely related couples and that they should be included. AND you could easlily refute my assertion by providing the justification for the exclusion. You havent even tried to do so.

Refute what? I am still waiting to hear what your so called argument is
You refuse to answer my question So ill ask again


Is your argument that because two elderly sisters cant marry, SSM shouldn't be allowed?
Yes or no?

 

[dixon01767]

Refute what? I am still waiting to hear what your so called argument is
You refuse to answer my question So ill ask again


Is your argument that because two elderly sisters cant marry, SSM shouldn't be allowed?
Yes or no?

Asked and answered

What argument?
Elderly sisters cant marry thus SSM shouldn't be allowed?

????? No same sex marriage should INCLUDE closely related couples because its exclusion has no rational justification..

Now which ****ing part of No do you not understand. Or is this just you again pefecting your dumb as dirt act trying to avoid addressing anything I actually posted?

 

[Quag]

Asked and answered





Now which ****ing part of No do you not understand. Or is this just you again pefecting your dumb as dirt act trying to avoid addressing anything I actually posted?

That's isn't an argument against SSM!!!
I am trying to debate your so called argument but its hard to debate a point the doesn't exist
Will you make an actual argument against SSM?

 

[dixon01767]

That's isn't an argument against SSM!!!

You asked for a yes or no answer to your question that Ive provided twice now and you still deny Ive answered the "yes or no" question and the answer to your other question immediately followed the "no" specifically "same sex marriage should INCLUDE closely related couples because its exclusion has no rational justification."

 

[Quag]

You asked for a yes or no answer to your question that Ive provided twice now and you still deny Ive answered the "yes or no" question and the answer to your other question immediately followed the "no" specifically "same sex marriage should INCLUDE closely related couples because its exclusion has no rational justification."

That isn't an argument against SSM
Will you continue to divert with BS or actually make an argument against SSM?

 

[Joel]

Now it doesnt. Dawn of civilization through the 20th century marriage was limited to men and women because only men and women procreate. Biology.

Political marriages between people too old to procreate. That was common throughout history.

 

[Rich2018]

Political marriages between people too old to procreate. That was common throughout history.

No, usually it was precisely to produces issues that would unite the houses of the marrying couple.

 

[Rich2018]

Now it doesnt. Dawn of civilization through the 20th century marriage was limited to men and women because only men and women procreate. Biology.

Your idea of the "dawn of history" reaches back only to the adoption of Abrahamic gods in their respected religions.

The history of our species goes further back than that and covers the entire globe.


Anyway the institution of slavery,goes back to further than you're dawn of history - it was a bad idea that was abolished. So much for historical precedent.

 

[dixon01767]

That isn't an argument against SSM

Of course it is. An argument for which you have nothing to respond with other than the silly claim that it isnt an argument.

 

[dixon01767]

Your idea of the "dawn of history" reaches back only to the adoption of Abrahamic gods in their respected religions.

.

Nah. Ancient Mesopotamia came before then. I believe the Hammurabi code was before then as well.

 

[Quag]

Of course it is. An argument for which you have nothing to respond with other than the silly claim that it isnt an argument.

If you think it is then explain how. All I see is the start of an argument for incestuous marriage

 

[dixon01767]

Political marriages between people too old to procreate. That was common throughout history.

That doesnt contradict a thing Ive said, so not sure of the relevance of your point.

 

[Cougarbear]

God is irrelevant to the discussion

In your mind. Not to those who understand the debate fully. See, what you and your buddies do is bring into the conversation God when you say things like this. Therefore, you are the ones who introduced God into the discussion. Therefore, as in a court of law, it is now relevant. Deal with it.

 

[dixon01767]

If you think it is then explain how. All I see is the start of an argument for incestuous marriage

Extending same sex marriage to closely related couples would eliminate the flaws of current same sex marriage. An argument against the flaws of same sex marriage.

 

[Quag]

In your mind. Not to those who understand the debate fully. See, what you and your buddies do is bring into the conversation God when you say things like this. Therefore, you are the ones who introduced God into the discussion. Therefore, as in a court of law, it is now relevant. Deal with it.

Nope God id irrelevant your personal views remain your personal views regardless of whether you claim they come from God or not.

 

[Cougarbear]

Procreation has nothing to do with marriage in the US because of it did then couples would be required to submit to a fertility test to prove that they have the ability to procreate as well as signing a pledge that their marriage will be annulled if they d do not produce offspring withi5 years. Marriage would also be denied to post-menopausal women and people who are intersexxed.

Religious laws cannot be enforced by the state without violating both religious freedom clauses of the 1st Amendment. I as an atheist can be required to live my life by the beliefs of another religion because I have equal religious send secure eights as everyone else.

God married Adam and Eve and commanded them and his posterity to multiply and replenish the earth. Procreation therefore has everything to do with marriage in all countries. You may not be old enough to remember that at one time, we did have to submit to blood tests in order to get a marriage license. So, testing for fertility certainly could be done and in conjunction with the Constitution. The laws have been done away with now, but that still proves my point that you don't understand the law nor the Constitution. And, especially the 1st amendment.

 

[Quag]

Extending same sex marriage to closely related couples would eliminate the flaws of current same sex marriage. An argument against the flaws of same sex marriage.

Are you really that clueless?
I mean seriously are you?


That isn't an argument against SSM it is a pro incestuous argument
Do you understand the difference?

By claiming that is an argument against SSM you are in fact just claiming that because closely related people cant get married then SSM people shouldn't be allowed to be married
But you have stated categorically that isn't your argument thus you have just admitted that you have nothing even coming close to an argument against SSM.

 

[dixon01767]

Procreation has nothing to do with marriage in the US because of it did then couples would be required to submit to a fertility test to prove that they have the ability to procreate as well as signing a pledge that their marriage will be annulled if they d do not produce offspring withi5 years. Marriage would also be denied to post-menopausal women and people who are intersexxed.

Two quotes from court cases DIRECTLY refuting your claim.

In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness;[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.

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 couples 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]

Are you really that clueless?
I mean seriously are you?


That isn't an argument against SSM it is a pro incestuous argument
.

What an absud claim. That would be like in the gay marriage debate arguing 'thats not an argument against traditional marriage, thats an argument for same sex marriage' When the argument against traditional marriage was that it excluded couples of the same sex. Title of the thread is Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage not Arguments Against the existence of Same-Sex Marriage.

 

[Lisa]

Two quotes from court cases DIRECTLY refuting your claim.

In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational-basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness;[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.

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 couples 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

Hetero couples we never deined the ability to marry because they could not reproduce, so stop citing the Skinner decision. Did youy happen to read this basic concepot of the Skinner decision? There is no rational basis to deny either Interracal people or LGBT from marrying. Marriage has long be ruled to be a fundamental right of people, so there is a very high bar that the state must prove before a couple can be deined the right to marry.

When fundamental rights are involved, a state can treat different groups differently, but it cannot exclude a certain group from treatment altogether if there is no rational basis to do so.

The basios for the Loving v. Virginia decsion is the very same as Obergfell v. Hodges.