Hypocritical Arguments Against gay Marriage

What are reasons against incest in general? Birth defects and the higher potential for abuse usually.

Obviously the birth defects argument would not apply to two brothers.. That I'm well aware of. All 50 states seem to have a blanket ban policy with incest however, so as to not be seen favouring one form of incest over another. That would be a bizarre situation...

As for non-sexual "couplings" between two unrelated people, the reason the state would ideally wish to withhold that is because it changes marriage as an institution FAR more than SSM does... The only difference that the latter has to opposite-sex marriage is the lack of ability to procreate with one another, the former would change the very nature of marriage to one being devoid of the kind of love/affection/comittment-based bond it was CERTAINLY founded on. HOWEVER - since we've established there's no state agency that "breaks up" platonic marriages, in neither the 6 SSM OR the remaining 44 states.. Platonic marriage is not illegal in any way, shape or form. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to keep telling you that.

Lastly is of course the related platonic couple, the mother and daughter.. As much I agree personally with them having increased rights, especially in raising children, the government and the courts know that this scenario creates incestuous marriage. As well as fundamentally changing the type of relationship marriage is for. Incestuous acts may still remain illegal but marriage is the ultimate form of recognition for a couple, and the state would be handing precisely that to incestuous couples. Not going to happen.

 

That's nice. I also know several gay couples who've been together years. One for around 10.

We can all share our personal experience, now let's see some kind of source for your claim that 80% of female same sex marriages have ended up in divorce already?

 

What makes you so unwilling to post stats you may find reguarding this ?

 

From my earlier post which you chose to ignore:

Why are there so many people on here that are just blatantly dishonest and manipulative? Is that really what you base your opinions on or are you people just trolls? I can't tell anymore.

 

Your Statistics on American Lesbian Couples High rate of Divorce are as good as mine so post some up , (Not European Statistics)

 

Lets take the financial incentive out of marriage and see how many HETEROSEXUALS still wish to be married, shall we?

 

I haven't got stats as in sources, but I'm not the one making the claim about US SSM divorce rates. And given that it's been established that around 1% of UK Civil Partnerships have ended in dissolution, your 80% rate for American lesbians sounds even more ridiculous.

This is the last time I'll ask you where you heard that claim. After that I'm not really interested in anything you have to say.

 

I am sorry but that is nonsense. You just have listed bunch of personal views that has nothing to do with a regulation and licensing.
Government cannot legislate moral or religious values, because those values are different for every individual.
In free society, government can only govern something that affects all the people and only relationship between man and woman falls into that category.

All other types of relationships are not the business of yours. You can't give preference to gays , while eliminating other possibilities because YOU THINK that ONLY two gays are cool.

 

Roundabout way of admitting you have no reasons

Not nearly as much as including SSM

 

Nations that have had same sex marriage the longest, are only seeing ONE HALF of 1% of all marriages are same sex marriages. Gays dont have much interest in marriage, monogamy, comittment. These things are more important to men and women who join together to create a family with the children they bring into the world. Monogamy determines who is the daddy and comittment is important to the wellbeing of the children during the next 18 years.

 

Everyone here is, every time they advocate for "gay marriage". Every single court case that created a right to SSM, did so for "gay marriage" only and its what the 6 states with SSM have done. Is refreshing, after a year here on the forum, to finally see people admit there really is no justification for "gay marriage"

 

Soooooo full of themselves that they think their personal views shoud dictate law.

 

Source?

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)

Same with gays.

I thought that was assumption of paternity? And gays have the same need for the well being of their children.

If you feel so strongly about marrying your brother...take your fight to the courts.

Pot meet kettle, you're both black.

 

I'm very inclined you believe it not to be nonsense otherwise you would basically be a supporter of incest. And I don't believe you are. Nice slippery slope/disingenuous argument though.

Incest can and has hurt other human beings by creating children with disabilities and defects. You know this. I made no reference to any religious argument.

The point was you could legalise incest between members of the same-sex based on there being zero potential of producing children with birth defects, but would essentially be discriminatory and on shaky Constitutional ground. Other than that, the state would certainly not want to be seen "half-promoting" incest... Favouring one form over another...

The simple fact is there are only two "basic forms" of relationships: heterosexual and homosexual. Same-sex and oppose-sex. ALL relationships fall into one or the other category. Since the separation of marriage and procreation undeniably exists (sterile opposite sex couples), there is no reason not to grant SSM. There's no hypocrisy in supporting that and not wanting to legalise things that have a proven detrimental effect on others, such as incest and bestiality.

As has been pointed out, there was no hypocrisy in opening up voting to women and not minors. It's chalk and cheese. One outlawed an entire class of people whereas age restrictions are based on common sense. So very different.

 

Incest is an undesired procreation. If (according to you) procreation and marriage are not linked, incest is not linked to marriage as well.

 

The reasons have already been discussed and explained in depth. Abuse and birth defects. The government doesn't want to go anywhere near incest, even if it means denying platonic related "couples" the right, since legalising that would be both the ultimate goverment recognition of incestuous relatiomships and would also be an admission that love and comittment have NOTHING to do with marriage. Before you say it, we've established that procreation isn't relevant with infertile/sterile opposite sex couples being able to marry.

 

Incest isn't linked to marriage... I don't get your point. Never said it was.

 

???

The percentage of gay people in most societies is around 2-3%. If only half a percent of all marriages in society were between same-sex couples this wouldn't at all be a big shock.. It would mean 25 to 17~ percent of gay people have married.

The fact is that it's a new institution. Gay people clearly aren't irresponsibly jumping into it like Kim Kardashian...(*)

 

Not handy. How about just one nation.

No, physically they cannot bring "their" children into the world. No babies result from homosexual couplings.

 

It wouldnt mean that at all because 100% of heterosexuals do not marry, silly.

 

Nooo, you keep running to the potential of birth defects of a closely related, opposite sex couple when the ONLY examples given and the only question asked have been of a closely related, NON sexual same sex couple.

 

Ok then, revision...

Gay people are 2-3%~ of the population. Same-sex couplings account for 0.5% of the married population. To be proportional to the opposite-sex marriage rate, the percentage for SS couples would have to be between six and four times greater than what it is now. Ergo, heterosexuals have married at 4 to 6 times higher rate.

Which means absolutely nothing at this point, when you consider how long SSM has been law anywhere. It's hardly had time to establish itself properly.

 

Problem is...

A) Full SSM wasn't even legalised in Sweden till 2009.

B) Your statistics are almost ten years out of date.

C) It's all irrelevant to the question of whether SSM should be legalised.