Page 101 of 159 FirstFirst ... 519199100101102103111151 ... LastLast
Results 1,001 to 1,010 of 1585

Thread: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

  1. #1001
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by iangb View Post
    ....and make up the majority of the Supreme Court. Sucks to have your POV, it seems.
    Sorry my little gay friend, but the rest of the supreme court did not make a statement showing their stupidity or dishonesty and claim that marriage was NOT designed to support procreation. Only homosexuals are making that argument.

  2. #1002
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by cabse5 View Post
    Your 2012 poll results disprove support for SSM. 33% for SS legal partnerships + 25% no recognition = 58% against SSM; 37% for SSM
    That's not correct. One can't reach a conclusion from that poll whether a majority favored or opposed it.

    If one wanted to take a guess, one could estimate that the odds would probably lean toward the former outcome, as those who expressed support for legal partnership had already opposed non-recognition. Hence, if the choice became one of marriage vs. non-recognition, the majority would probably favor marriage.

    And that proved to be the case. A June 2013 poll showed that 57% of adults supported marriage for same sex couples while 40% opposed it. In short, the subsequent polling data showed that a majority of respondents now favored marriage for same sex couples. That outcome disproves the hypothesis that one could assume that the earlier poll showed a majority of Americans opposed same sex marriage.

  3. #1003
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Actually, you are all wet on this argument with Ontologyguy. Procreation isn't a condition of marriage but it absolutely was and still is the general purpose of marriage.
    Absolute romanticized hog wash. The reason for the marriage contract is to deal with property and next of kin rights.

  4. #1004
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Absolute romanticized hog wash. The reason for the marriage contract is to deal with property and next of kin rights.
    Nope. That's easily handled through wills. The purpose is multi-fold and all the aspects had to do with procreation. That's why cousins can't get married. That's why certain bloodtypes are prohibited from marriage. That's why certain venereal diseases could have barred you from marriage. In Ireland, you used to have to state you planned to have children in order to get a marriage license. These roots of procreation were the purpose of marriage. It's complete ignorance or abject dishonesty to claim otherwise.

  5. #1005
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Actually, you are all wet on this argument with Ontologyguy. Procreation isn't a condition of marriage but it absolutely was and still is the general purpose of marriage. You don't have to own a car to get a driver's license. You aren't forced to go hunting after you buy a hunting license. You don't have to know how to tie a hook onto a line in order to get a fishing license and you don't have to prove you will bear children and/or validate your marriage by bearing children in order to get a marriage license. But the purpose of a driver's license is for driving. Fishing license for fishing. Hunting license for hunting and a marriage license for procreating and raising a family.

    Alito was absolutely right and people who deny this are either stupid or dishonest.
    Your analogies are stupid. If you were talking about a procreation license, you would have valid analogies, but you aren't. You are talking about a marriage license, which is not at all the same thing as a procreation license. The purpose of a marriage license is to permit people to marry and receive government recognition of that arrangement/agreement, not to procreate or even raise children.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #1006
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Nope. That's easily handled through wills. The purpose is multi-fold and all the aspects had to do with procreation. That's why cousins can't get married. That's why certain bloodtypes are prohibited from marriage. That's why certain venereal diseases could have barred you from marriage. In Ireland, you used to have to state you planned to have children in order to get a marriage license. These roots of procreation were the purpose of marriage. It's complete ignorance or abject dishonesty to claim otherwise.
    No it isn't handled through wills. Wills can be broken. Bloodtypes no longer prohibit a person from marriage (if it ever truly did). We are talking about legal marriage, in the US, right now. Not in another country, and not in the past.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #1007
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Your analogies are stupid. If you were talking about a procreation license, you would have valid analogies, but you aren't. You are talking about a marriage license, which is not at all the same thing as a procreation license. The purpose of a marriage license is to permit people to marry and receive government recognition of that arrangement/agreement, not to procreate or even raise children.
    The license to marry was, in fact, the license to procreate. Your ignorance is showing, madam. Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember when it was shameful to have a child out of wedlock. Perhaps you are not mature enough to understand the purpose of marriage as a unit designed to support a new family. Or maybe you are just too dishonest to even consider this truth. Whatever the reason, you are rejecting reality when you try to claim that marriage was not about procreation. It absolutely was and my arguments are that you can't refute that by claiming that procreation isn't a condition of marriage, therefore, it can't be the purpose of marriage. It absolutely was. Nowadays, as Alito said, it's been morphing into something else, but the reason marriage was created was for the sake of procreation and homosexual marriages do not further that goal.

  8. #1008
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No it isn't handled through wills. Wills can be broken. Bloodtypes no longer prohibit a person from marriage (if it ever truly did). We are talking about legal marriage, in the US, right now. Not in another country, and not in the past.
    All these things point to what marriage actually was created for. You might hate the truth because it interferes with your agenda, but the truth is still that marriage was created for the sake of procreation. If you want to flaunt your ignorance by denying that, I can't do anything to stop you. The evidence is clear to anyone that cares more about what's right than who's right.

  9. #1009
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Nope. That's easily handled through wills. .
    Again absolute hogwash. Example:

    Estate Tax
    Internal Revenue Code 2056 exempts amounts transferred to a surviving spouse from the decedent’s taxable estate. For same-sex couples who are legally barred from marriage, this exemption is not available, creating an inequity in taxation.

    An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign

  10. #1010
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    The license to marry was, in fact, the license to procreate. Your ignorance is showing, madam. Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember when it was shameful to have a child out of wedlock. Perhaps you are not mature enough to understand the purpose of marriage as a unit designed to support a new family. Or maybe you are just too dishonest to even consider this truth. Whatever the reason, you are rejecting reality when you try to claim that marriage was not about procreation. It absolutely was and my arguments are that you can't refute that by claiming that procreation isn't a condition of marriage, therefore, it can't be the purpose of marriage. It absolutely was. Nowadays, as Alito said, it's been morphing into something else, but the reason marriage was created was for the sake of procreation and homosexual marriages do not further that goal.
    No, it wasn't. In fact, even in the earlier times, when Christianity was giving out the licenses, they did not allow divorce or even annulments just for infertility, especially infertility of the woman.

    13 surprising facts about marriage | MNN - Mother Nature Network

    In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.

    "The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience.
    But again, we are discussing the current marriage laws, not what you presume the laws came from or were "always about". You are wrong because they were not always, everywhere about procreation or even raising children.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •