Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by learis, Oct 13, 2015.

?

Why Are You Against SSM

  1. Your Religion Says It's Wrong

    5 vote(s)
    19.2%
  2. Same Sex Couples Are Incapable of Genuinely Loving Each Other

    2 vote(s)
    7.7%
  3. Allowing SSM Will Lead to Allowing Beastiality, Polygamy, Incest, etc.

    2 vote(s)
    7.7%
  4. Other

    17 vote(s)
    65.4%
  1. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay so the major issue attacking marriage right now is heterosexual couples that have children out of wedlock and don't stick around to raise them?

    I would agree
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  2. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's one major issue, yes. While this is not attacking the institution of marriage itself, as homosexual "marriage" has done, this is still a blatant disregard for the institution of marriage (which results in the issues that you have raised here).
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2021
  3. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It seems like the primary issue. If marriage hadn't been so degraded by the time in the Court ruled on the same sex marriage and I might not have.
     
  4. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,834
    Likes Received:
    32,498
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you believe elderly heterosexuals couples beyond the age of reproduction should be able to marry?
    Infertile couples?
     
    MJ Davies likes this.
  5. MJ Davies

    MJ Davies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2020
    Messages:
    21,120
    Likes Received:
    20,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Y'all have some stamina. This convo's been going for 7 years! If they don't get it by now, they probably aren't going to get it.

    Simple: Stay out of other people's business. Full stop.
     
    cd8ed likes this.
  6. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,834
    Likes Received:
    32,498
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I just find it fascinating honestly. I don’t see same sex marriage being overturned with even this most biased court as no one can show injury but the arguments always come down to
    • Religion (not a legal argument)
    • Procreation (not a requirement)
    • It has damaged the ‘institution’ (zero evidence)
    • It’s icky (so are the people making this argument)
    I keep waiting on someone to make a rational argument
     
    Maccabee likes this.
  7. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course, because, in his eyes, they can reproduce in principle. Whatever that means.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2021
  8. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes.

    They, as any other heterosexual couple, can procreate in principle (as they are one male and one female), even if some circumstance happens to be stopping them from doing so in actuality.
     
  9. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It means "relating to the definition of".
     
  10. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I've already made one. Where procreation, in principle, is impossible, marriage is irrelevant (not needed).
     
  11. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,834
    Likes Received:
    32,498
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    An elderly couple cannot procreate in principle. If they are allowed to wed the reasoning to deny same sex couples because they cannot procreate becomes unequal treatment (and thus unconstitutional).
     
  12. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,834
    Likes Received:
    32,498
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That was your statement “in principle”. Elderly couples cannot procreate in principle.

    Just saying they are heterosexual so they can marry regardless of their ability to procreate but that a same sex couple cannot marry due to that same limitation is an unequal application of the law.
     
  13. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Incorrect.

    You obviously don't understand what the phrase 'in principle' means. It means "relating to the definition of".

    The definition of marriage does not change because of particular circumstances (aka 'exceptions'). For example, if an apple has a worm in it, it is still, in principle, an apple. The worm's presence inside the apple does not suddenly change the definition of an apple. Likewise, if there is no procreation occurring in a particular marriage, that does not suddenly change the definition of marriage. IOW, it is still, in principle, a marriage.

    Nope. Heterosexuals can, in principle, procreate. Any two particular heterosexuals might have particular circumstances which impede their ability to procreate, but that doesn't affect the principle of the matter. Heterosexuals CAN procreate (in principle). Homosexuals cannot procreate, not even in principle.

    This has NOTHING to do with "equal treatment" and EVERYTHING to do with science (biology).
     
  14. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes they can, so long as one is a man and the other is a woman. Men and women CAN, in principle, procreate. Becoming elderly is a circumstance which renders procreation very difficult / impossible, but that circumstance does not somehow change the definition of marriage. One does not lose their marriage status as they grow older. A worm making its way into an apple does not make an apple somehow lose its apple-ness.

    NOT "regardless of", but BECAUSE of. They can marry BECAUSE of their ability to procreate (in principle). It is this ability of a man and a woman to procreate that is the basis for the definition of marriage. Where procreation in principle is impossible, marriage is irrelevant (not needed).

    Nope. It is simply science (biology).

    Nobody is barring gays/lesbians from marrying. They have the same access to a marriage (man and a woman) as anybody else does, but they are refusing to get married because of their sexual orientation. They are instead opting to have sexual relations with people of the same sex as them.

    Law is being applied equally.
     
  15. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,834
    Likes Received:
    32,498
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are trying to assign a legal principle to marriage that does not exist.
    There has never been a potential of procreation requirement in modern US law.

    Procreation is irrelevant to signing a civil contract whether that be in reality or in principle.

    Is procreation “relating to the definition of” marriage? If yes, can you source said definition? If no, that isn’t an argument.
     
  16. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,834
    Likes Received:
    32,498
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If heterosexuals can marry regardless of ability to procreate then it must be equally applied. If an infertile heterosexual union doesn’t change the apple neither will an infertile homosexual union.

    This isn’t true however, not legally or practically. The definition of marriage is a civil joining of two unrelated persons, there is no mention or assumption of procreation.

    Biology has nothing to do with marriage law

    Which is their right, there must be a valid reason to add a gender requirement to such legal contract. Saying that reason is procreation but other groups don’t have to be able to procreate isn’t a valid line of reasoning. It is discriminatory.

    It is now, correct
     
  17. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Irrelevant and an avoidance of what I'm saying.

    We aren't discussing civil contracts; we are discussing the definition of marriage.

    Yes. And no, I'm not going to play holy link wars with you. I've already posited the notion that where procreation in principle is impossible, marriage is irrelevant. There is no need for marriage under such a scenario. Marriage exists for the commitment made when one personifies, via child bearing, the notion of "two bodies becoming one flesh". It is this possibility of procreation that gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place. Outside of that, marriage would be completely and utterly irrelevant. --- Relationships ("marriages") would be no more fruitful than friendships.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2021
  18. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It IS being equally applied.

    An apple is an apple. A heterosexual union is NOT a homosexual union. A homosexual union is NOT a marriage.

    What's the purpose in doing this? Like I said, when procreation in principle is impossible, marriage is irrelevant. It's just two very close friends obtaining a legal status from the government. It doesn't assist in raising a family in any way/shape/form. However, marriage provides for a stable household in which a father and a mother will raise their children.

    Marriage law has nothing to do with biology. But it is biology which tells us that only male and female can reproduce, which is the whole essence of marriage. Without it, marriage is irrelevant.

    Marriage is completely irrelevant under your view of it.
     
  19. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,834
    Likes Received:
    32,498
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are trying to assert that marriage means procreation “in principle” — that hasn’t been backed up.


    Can you post the source of the definition you are using? Because mine says it is a legal contract.

    So you are arguing the definition of a word but refusing to post said definition.

    Marriage, in the US, is a civil contract:
    Every state has similar language to New York
    § 10. Marriage a civil contract. Marriage, so far as its validity in
    law is concerned, continues to be a civil contract, to which the consent
    of parties capable in law of making a contract is essential.

    I cannot find a single one that mentions marriage.
     
  20. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,834
    Likes Received:
    32,498
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is now, correct

    No one has said otherwise [/QUOTE]A homosexual union is NOT a marriage.[/QUOTE]That is simply a false statement, even if you disagree with the law — a same sex marriage is marriage.

    How does marriage help two elderly individuals raise children that could not be said about a same sex couple? Same sex couples can and do raise children.

    That is your opinion which isn’t backed up by US law or legal principle.

    For the millions of married couples without children — I am sure they disagree with your opinion.
     
  21. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It has always been.

    You have, and you do again below.

    Nope. There is no such thing as a same sex "marriage". Same sex relationships are NOT marriages, nor will they ever be. To consider such as "marriages" is to reduce the institution of marriage to complete and utter irrelevancy, and you refuse to address this because you know that it is true.

    Oh, and you avoided the next question too... "What is the purpose in civilly joining two unrelated persons?" What fruit is there in doing that? What is being accomplished?

    RQAA (repetitive question already answered) ... I have already addressed this objection. I am not going to answer the same questions again and again and again.

    Same sex couples can only steal the fruit of somebody else's labor. They cannot yield fruit of their own.

    IOW, they can only "raise children" if some heterosexual couple has a child and then subsequently gives him/her away. --- They can only raise someone else's child; they cannot raise a child of their own.

    So again, you very well know that marriage is completely and utterly irrelevant if it is reduced to being "a civil joining of two people" rather than a holy institution between a man and a woman in which the man and woman "become one body", as personified in their child.

    You make marriage completely and utterly irrelevant if you remove the fact that marriage is a holy institution that provides a social construct for raising a stable and loving family (mom, dad, child).

    RQAA. I have already addressed this numerous times, yet you continue to keep ignoring it. Learn what "in principle" means.
     
  22. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,834
    Likes Received:
    32,498
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    False, I bet people had similar arguments when interracial couples wanted to wed or couldn’t, or interfaith couples — so no — it hasn’t “always been”

    I never said they were the same. I said they are equally deserving of marriage rights.

    I have addressed this. It is false.

    There are numerous societal and personal benefits that come with marriage. More financial stability, psychological stability, increased monogamy, a reduction in STD’s and crime, financial and estate planning and many many more.

    You asserted a fallacy. If you want that to be your answer then by all means.

    Which, again, is irrelevant to the law. Maybe if all the heterosexuals didn’t throw their children away same sex couples wouldn’t have to pick up what you deemed as garbage.

    Also bisexual people do marry individuals of the same sex and care for their own child. Your assertion is again inaccurate.

    There is no such thing as “holy”. That is your issue — you have tried to bring up your made up religion into this which is why your arguments don’t carry legal weight.

    There is nothing to remove as it isn’t a requirement. Heterosexuals can still marry so I do not understand your concern. They will still receive all the same benefits as they always have.

    In principle is irrelevant to legal requirements or conditions.
     
  23. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Same sex couple can procreate in principle too with sperm and egg donations.
     
  24. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope, not even in principle.

    Those sperm and egg donations come from ANOTHER MAN and ANOTHER WOMAN... the resulting child is NOT of the same sex couple; it, rather, is of the sperm and egg donors.

    Sure, the same sex couple can foster-parent (father and father) that child, but it is not THEIR child (biologically). They did NOT procreate anything. The donors did.
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  25. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Regarding homosexual couples, it has always been equally applied. That is what this discussion is about, NOT interracial couples. You are grasping for straws.

    Yes, you did. You said that they are both marriages. Only one of them is a marriage.

    Marriage isn't about "rights".

    No, it isn't. You have reduced the institution of marriage down to complete irrelevancy. I have shown you why and will continue to show you why.

    This is achieved via having multiple adults living under the same roof, not marriage. --- This is why college students (who aren't married to each other) tend to have roommates (so that rent is easier to pay for). A faithful marriage does have this though.

    This is achieved via fellowship, not marriage. A faithful marriage does have this though.

    This is achieved via self control, not marriage. A faithful marriage does have this though.

    None of these things come from marriage, although faithful marriages do have them.

    No, I didn't.

    Which, again, is irrelevant to this discussion.

    Many of them don't. Some of them do. This is a fallen world.

    Correct. If all heterosexuals would be responsible and only have children within the confines of a loving faithful marriage, and only if they wish to have children in the first place and have the means to support children, then there wouldn't be any children to "pick up".

    Same sex couples cannot have children. They only steal the fruit of somebody else's labor.

    My religious beliefs are irrelevant in this discussion. So are yours. My arguments are science and logic based.

    Marriage isn't about benefits. I have already told you what it is about and the reason for the institution. --- To lie and pretend as if gay/lesbian couples can "marry" is to reduce the institution of marriage to irrelevancy, as I have shown above.

    In principle IS relevant to word definitions, which is what we are discussing. We are NOT discussing law in any way/shape/form.

    Learn what "in principle" means.
    Learn how to follow a conversation.
     
    ToddWB likes this.

Share This Page