Page 102 of 112 FirstFirst ... 25292100101102103104 ... LastLast
Results 1,011 to 1,020 of 1111

Thread: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

  1. #1011
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Well, since the purpose for marriage laws has not been about procreation, your point is irrelevant both factually and logically.

    Now, if you want to keep throwing out stupid partisan comments, I can certainly play that game, but it's making your argument look weaker than it is. Certainly if that's your goal, keep doing it.
    What marriage laws were originally created for now seems to be entirely in the realm of opinion. Yours and mine are different v many share yours. Many share mine. You want to claim procreation wasn't the most important reason. I think you are dead wrong and that it was the primary goal. But I also think we are at impasse and probably will be at least until its decided for all, and maybe well beyond that.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  2. #1012
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Well, since the purpose for marriage laws has not been about procreation, your point is irrelevant both factually and logically.
    Actually the history of marriage is very important and the word 'matrimony' itself is from the Latin word for 'mother' and that, of course, is all about procreation. We can debate about Gays marrying but we should understand that history and culture always play an important role in any society.

  3. #1013
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    What marriage laws were originally created for now seems to be entirely in the realm of opinion. Yours and mine are different v many share yours. Many share mine. You want to claim procreation wasn't the most important reason. I think you are dead wrong and that it was the primary goal. But I also think we are at impasse and probably will be at least until its decided for all, and maybe well beyond that.
    What marriage laws were originally created for is a matter of logic and examination. Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage. I do not consider this an impasse. I see it more of you digging into a position that has no standing logically or definitively for whatever reason it is that you have.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #1014
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Actually the history of marriage is very important and the word 'matrimony' itself is from the Latin word for 'mother' and that, of course, is all about procreation. We can debate about Gays marrying but we should understand that history and culture always play an important role in any society.
    The history of marriage is not relevant due to the logical fallacy. You can not prove a position by claiming "it's always been that way". From a legal standpoint, procreation is not a requirement in any way shape or form. And, if you going to use a cultural position, then the fact that today's culture shows that SSM is supported by the majority, the impact of this on society is pretty clear.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  5. #1015
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    What marriage laws were originally created for is a matter of logic and examination. Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage. I do not consider this an impasse. I see it more of you digging into a position that has no standing logically or definitively for whatever reason it is that you have.
    And I consider you to be naysaying and pretending that's a sound refutation. The link between procreation and marriage laws is so ubiquitous that you trip over it every time you examine history and you reject it offhand. As Grant said, even the word matrimony relates to procreation. It was about establishing a family unit and supporting framework for having children.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  6. #1016
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    The history of marriage is not relevant due to the logical fallacy. You can not prove a position by claiming "it's always been that way". From a legal standpoint, procreation is not a requirement in any way shape or form. And, if you going to use a cultural position, then the fact that today's culture shows that SSM is supported by the majority, the impact of this on society is pretty clear.
    When you argue that homosexuals should be give. Marriage rights, it is right to question whether or not that would advance the interests of the state that motivated the state to sanction marriage in the first place. And in order to do that, you look at history. I don't blame you for trying to cover it up as quickly as possible and dismiss it as a logical fallacy since you are vested in the denial of it's purpose. But you can't dismiss it as a logical fallacy "appeal to history" because the arguments we are engaging in are dependent on history and purpose.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  7. #1017
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    And I consider you to be naysaying and pretending that's a sound refutation.
    No, the refutation is sound and has been for days. Facts and logic both support my position.

    The link between procreation and marriage laws is so ubiquitous that you trip over it every time you examine history and you reject it offhand.
    The link is irrelevant. We are talking about purpose and requirement. You can't argue a position successfully if all you have a link, but purpose and requirement are against you. You could say that there is a link between getting married and having sex, but you cannot prove that this is the purpose for marriage, nor is it a requirement to GET married.

    As Grant said, even the word matrimony relates to procreation. It was about establishing a family unit and supporting framework for having children.
    Which does not prove your position because of the logical fallacy... you always trip over this.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  8. #1018
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    The history of marriage is not relevant due to the logical fallacy. You can not prove a position by claiming "it's always been that way". From a legal standpoint, procreation is not a requirement in any way shape or form. And, if you going to use a cultural position, then the fact that today's culture shows that SSM is supported by the majority, the impact of this on society is pretty clear.
    You said "Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage" when that is obviously false. If you disregard the "it's always been that way" argument, how can you make the argument that "Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage"? We either ignore history or we accept it.

    Matrimony was extremely important because it obliged the husband to be responsible for the children (and the 'house') and for the wife to be faithful in that relationship so that the husband would not be working for another mans children.

    If society is ready for Gay marriages then so be it. The same holds true for polygamous marriages, also already de facto recognized in the UK and Canada. But we cannot use history to support Gay marriage. It has always been a heterosexual concept.

  9. #1019
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    When you argue that homosexuals should be give. Marriage rights, it is right to question whether or not that would advance the interests of the state that motivated the state to sanction marriage in the first place. And in order to do that, you look at history. I don't blame you for trying to cover it up as quickly as possible and dismiss it as a logical fallacy since you are vested in the denial of it's purpose. But you can't dismiss it as a logical fallacy "appeal to history" because the arguments we are engaging in are dependent on history and purpose.
    No, what you do is present an argument of how SSM would advance the interests of the state, CURRENTLY, based on the laws that are currently in effect. And since we know that procreation has never been a purpose or requirement in the legality of marriage, we know that this is just one reason that SSM fulfills the the right. Saying something has always been that one way does not support a current argument. I know that it is easier to dismiss the facts and logic that has been presented to you since they sink your argument, but you can't dismiss them, nor can you deny logic.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  10. #1020
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    You said "Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage" when that is obviously false.
    No, it's obviously true. If you believe differently, I will give you the same challenge that I have given others... and not one person has accepted the challenge. Produce one piece of application paperwork or one law that indicates that procreation is a requirement for marriage in the history of the US.

    If you disregard the "it's always been that way" argument, how can you make the argument that "Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage"? We either ignore history or we accept it.
    Because the onus of the proof is on you. You claim that the purpose of marriage is for procreation. You need to prove that. I have countered your claim with the statement that "procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage". You want to prove your position it is as simple as finding any documentation that counters my claim.

    [Matrimony was extremely important because it obliged the husband to be responsible for the children (and the 'house') and for the wife to be faithful in that relationship so that the husband would not be working for another mans children.
    If you look at this statement it is NOT about procreation... it is about why the state currently sanctions marriage... the rearing of children, stability, financial stability, and health, all things that support the state.

    If society is ready for Gay marriages then so be it. The same holds true for polygamous marriages, also already de facto recognized in the UK and Canada. But we cannot use history to support Gay marriage. It has always been a heterosexual concept.
    Which is, again, an appeal to history logical fallacy and does not support your position.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Posting Permissions

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